Boo!
*DAN ADAMS SP- I -IN To TE WXND
The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 5
What's luck got to do with it?
BONNIE KELLMAN. BLNT EDGE
OTTAWA -
ince the
World
.y Trade
Center attacks
in 2001, the
public's focus
and its fear
-have been
squarely on the
threat of terrorism. FOX's new
gloom and doom flick, "The Day
After Tomorrow," might just change
all that. The movie has, in a matter
of weeks, revitalized a once dormant
debate over the likelihood that we're
causing gradual, potentially cata-
strophic changes in global climate
patterns. Trailers for the film depict
tidal waves engulfing the Statue of
Liberty, grapefruit-size hail raining
down on Tokyo and, most alarming,
the dawn of a new ice age caused by
a shift in ocean currents.
Though these scenarios are
indeed far fetched, the scientific
consensus on climate change is that
it is real and is upon us. But for
years, a well-organized (and often
well-financed) resistance has stalled
efforts to address the problem, com-
bining heavily entrenched industry
interests (such as Exxon-Mobil) and
the pseudo-credibility of a few well-
educated skeptics like Bjorn Lum-
borg, Fred Singer and Robert
Balling. These skeptics cast doubt
on the science of global warming,
giving industry a free pass to contin-
ue business as usual and the public
an excuse to let them do it.
Now, after years of concerted
efforts at moral persuasion have
utterly failed, environmentally con-
scious groups from Ben and Jerry's,
*o Moveon.org, are promoting this
movie - not in the hopes that it will
educate Americans concerning the
dangers of fossil fuel emissions, but
that it will, quite frankly, scare the
crap out of them.
It's a regrettable change in
approach, to be sure. But if the tactic
of scare-mongering comes in and
out of style, right now it's wearing an
Armani suit. On a daily basis, we're
bombarded by the 24-hour news
media with color coded terrorism
alerts and vague, ominous intelli-
gence reports warning of impending
doom. Pundits such as Sean Hanni-
ty, Bill O'Reilly and even our "paper
of record" the New York Times have
been enlisted as part of an open
assault on our sense of safety.
Now that the environmentalists
want their turn, even some of these
same individuals have begun to cry
foul. In a strange, but not uncommon
display of hypocrisy, Sean Hannity,
of the hit FOX analysis show, "Han-
nity and Colmes," had this to say on
the May 25th edition of his show,
"The vanquished vice president, Al
Gore, is using the film as an excuse
to bash President Bush one more
time ... Al Gore uses fear tactics and
hyperbole and attacks Republicans."
Imagine that - Sean Hannity,
concerned about the use of "fear
tactics."
Maybe now, after years of trying
to gently persuade lawmakers and
the public to care about climate
change, the environmental lobby
will finally get the kind of attention
that their cause deserves. In the
words of Michael Molitor, the for-
mer geochemist who helped advise
the making of the film and who has
testified before Congress on the
matter, "It is going to do more for
the issue of climate change than
anything I've done in my whole life."
Sadly, he's probably right.
Adams can be reached at
dnadams@umich.eds.
CALIFORNIA -
n response to the
Supreme Court's
Gratz v. Bollinger
ruling last year, the
University made its
undergraduate appli-
cation process longer
and more involved in
order to more careful-
ly evaluate the individual merits of appli-
cants. The implications of this change have
been scrutinized and widely publicized.
Last Friday, the Detroit Free Press reported
that the amount of students who applied to
the University last fall dropped signifi-
cantly. Applications declined 25 percent
for African Americans, 13 percent for His-
panics and 8.5 percent for Native Ameri-
cans. Applications from Caucasian
students, however, also fell over 20 per-
cent. Apparently, fear of hard work and
rejection transcends racial boundaries.
That's not news.
I've applied to more than my share of
colleges. During high school, I was
obsessed with the idea of going to a small,
private university. Specifically, I fell in
love with the University of Chicago.
They're nerds, I'm a nerd. We would get
along perfectly, I was sure of it.
Obviously, things didn't work out
exactly how I had planned. But they
worked out nonetheless. I went to Michi-
gan and enjoyed myself Too soon, it was
sophomore year and time to start thinking
about studying abroad. Suddenly, I had
another chance to go to a small, private
university. I immediately looked towards
Great Britain. Once I had my sights on
England, it wasn't long before I began to
dream of Oxford University.
At the first study abroad meeting,
however, the program director spent the
entire time emphasizing the merits of the
lesser known universities. When she final-
ly mentioned Oxford, she only stressed
how difficult it would be to get in. Oxford
wasn't the only university in Britain, she
repeated. Besides, the application process
would be long and difficult.
I left the meeting confused and wor-
ried. I began to think of all the reasons I
wouldn't be accepted to Oxford. Had I
taken enough English classes? Would my
professors write me good recommenda-
tions? I thought back to my early college
rejections and decided not to risk it. I
would apply only to King's College and
the University of York; I was sure to be
accepted to one of those.
But despite my misgivings, Oxford
hovered persistently at the back of my
mind. The first part of the study abroad
application is the same for all universities,
so I was able to fill it out without actually
deciding to which one I would apply. I did-
n't make up my mind until the week the
application was due. "Oxford University,"
I finally scribbled on the top of the sheet,
and then immediately ran to the Office of
International Programs to turn it in before
I could change my mind.
I was accepted.
I wonder at this. There are so many
people who are smarter and more talented
than I am. ButI also know that the majori-
ty of them were just as scared by the direc-
tor's words as I had been. Many, I'm sure,
did not even apply. I've seen so many
bright people stumble and fall before they
even started running the race. Sometimes,
I wonder if they're really afraid of failure
or just afraid of success.
In the end. I was accepted to Oxford
because I applied - despite fear of rejec-
tion. I forced myself to fill out the applica-
tion, even though it was more difficult
than the ones for the other universities.
This is exactly what so many students
failed to do when they decided not to
apply to Michigan last year. Maybe these
students would have been accepted, maybe
not. But they'll never know because they
didn'ttry. It's as simple as that.
Really, nobody knows why a qualified
person is accepted or rejected from a com-
petitive university. Of course, there are the-
ories: colleges want minorities and legacy
children; someone with money, without
money; from a good part of town, from a
bad part. Most of the time, though, it feels
as if there are so many qualified students
for so few spaces that acceptances are ran-
dom. And because of this, you.need more
than just intelligence to succeed in the
world. You need will power, ambition,
optimism--and luck. You have to at least
try, again and again and again, until you
finally succeed. And this applies to all
areas of life, not just college admissions.
Kellman can be reached at
bonkell@umich.edu.
The market's next monster
SAM SINGER TAKE TwO
SAM BUTLER i HE SO 'rx
horse Iwll lead the
Chemg for human'
rights around the
mrld!
i +
n 1995, Larry
Page and Sergey
Brin, two young,
vibrant computer sci-
ence students at Stan-
ford University put
their Ph.D work on
hold in pursuit of a
common vision.
Brought together by
similar research interests in the World
Wide Web and data mining, these techno-
logical pioneers combined ingenuity with
idealism to craft one of the most remark-
able contrivances of the 20th century.
Their brainchild, Google Inc., has
advanced to become the world's most
expansive data gathering instrument and
has forged an innovative path for the future
of global information acquisition. Sadly, a
recent decision to take the company public
risks forsaking the user-focused romanti-
cism that inspired the search engine's
architects and earned them their fortunes.
The forthcoming initial public offering,
while almost certainly lucrative, risks rup-
turing the ideological foundations that
helped spawn Google's success.
Page and Brin descended upon Silicon
Valley in the peak of the mid-'90s venture
capital craze with the avant-garde of net-
technology - a groundbreaking and inge-
niously resourceful web-searching
apparatus. Hurdling past the primordial
word-matching devices employed by the
majority of search engines at the time,
Google's novel approach to Internet
queries proved to be a cut above the rest.
By scanning the Internet for germane ref-
erences to a particular URL, also known
as "backiinks," Page and Brin were able to
develop an algorithm to determine a page's
pertinence to the set of search terms.
Effectively, the program's engineers were
able to gauge a website's relevancy by its
popularity - a pipe dream for any other
engine at the time.
In supplementing the company's
apparent technical superiority, the co-
founders further distinguished their handi-
work from competitors by declining to
allow sites to purchase potential web-list-
ings. This decision, while limiting short-
term revenue, helped ensure prospective
patrons and investors alike that search list-
ings would be arranged by importance -
not auctioned off. The combination of
Google's imaginative search criterion with
its refusal to permit paid inclusion demon-
strated the user-friendly benevolence its
creators had hoped to project. But is
Google's goodwill sustainable?
The combination of a swelling tech
market and an aggregate decline in the
reliance on Google's meta-search capabil-
ities has knocked the profit margin cush-
ion out from under the search engine
giant. With the entrance of fierce and
tech-savvy competitors, Google's high-
principled pedestal is beginning to wob-
ble. Most notably, the engine no longer
red flags promotional pages that infiltrate
search results, a clear concession to the
net-marketing lobby. Some contend that
we have only witnessed the very first of
what will be a slippery slope of profit-
seeking reforms - one that will destroy
Google's image as a bastion of web-
searching propriety.
Last month, Google set off an econom-
ic sonic boom on Wall Street when it
announced its plan to hold an IPO. Initial
public offerings often breathe new life into
faltering corporations and can even further
rejuvenate already progressing ones.
Indeed, public shareholders can act as a
rousing and motivational force to increase
efficiency, elevate profits and keep man-
agement on its toes.
At the risk of over generalizing, it
should be noted that shareholders tend to
hold little patience for a company's long-
term profit plan and are usually only
appeased when a plus sign appears next to
the stock listing. Transferring ownership to
the public sphere will place even more
pressure on executives to shed integrity for
immediate market gratification - and the
paid inclusion exemption will be the first
policy to go. The attendant consequences
of excluding offbeat or minority opinions
from the world's largest information
access system because they lack financial
backing need not be overstated. A web
page disassociated from Google is effec-
tively excluded from popular discourse.
Before handing ownership of the world's
largest information library over to profit-
driven shareholders, Page and Brin need to
do some soul searching. What was once an
access system embedded with sentiments
of social conscience is now at risk of
becoming the market's next bottom-line
driven monster.
Singercan be reached at
singers@umich.edu.